Showing posts with label wars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wars. Show all posts

Friday, October 1, 2010

Where do our taxes go?

The left leaning Third Way think tank published an itemized breakdown of where a typical federal taxpayer's revenues go. The median US income was $34,140 in 2009, which required $5,400 in income tax (include FICA payroll tax). Of that amount, here is the tax breakdown according to their calc's:


Item Tax % of total
Soc Sec $1,041.00 19.278
Medicare $626.00 11.593
Medicaid $385.00 7.130
Debt interest $287.00 5.315
Iraq/Afghanistan $229.00 4.241
Military Personnel $193.00 3.574
Vet Benefits $75.00 1.389
Fed Highways $64.00 1.185
NIH $47.00 0.870
Foreign Aid $46.00 0.852
K-12 Low Income Student Aid $38.00 0.704
Retired Military $33.00 0.611
Pell Grants $30.00 0.556
NASA $28.00 0.519
IRS $18.00 0.333
EPA $12.00 0.222
FBI $11.00 0.204
Head Start $11.00 0.204
Pub Housing $11.00 0.204
Nat Parks $4.00 0.074
DEA $3.00 0.056
Amtrak $2.00 0.037
Smithsonian $1.00 0.019
Arts Funding $0.20 0.004
Compensation for Congress $0.20 0.004

Of course this list is not comprehensive, as the sum of all items adds up to $3,200 or 59% of total, so I guess the rest of our taxes went to thousands of other smaller programs and maybe the salaries of other federal workers. I just find it disturbing that interest on our deficit, NASA, and Amtrak consume so much of our taxes versus other needs. I know the military is expensive, and we spend more than most of the G20 combined. And for those critics who say we dispense too much foreign aid, I think 0.9% is nothing for the richest nation in history. Compare that to the 31% we spend to support the 39M or so elderly Americans today. 13% of our population is consuming 31% of our revenues, and many of those retired are plenty well off financially.

Speaking of being well off, maybe you have heard of this U of Chicago law professor (Todd Henderson) who blogged about how hard his life is even though his household makes over $250k/year (his wife is an oncologist). He's worried about Obama raising taxes on him, and claims that he's not "rich". Obviously his narrow mindedness has offended the blogosphere and media, when the median US household income is $45k and 10% of willing workers can't land a job. Plus Henderson's complaints don't hold water: he lives in a pricey neighborhood, works easy hours, sends his kids to fancy private schools, contributes heavily to his 401(k), and has a landscaper and nanny. I'm sure he spends on frivolous consumer goods and services too. So if he feels so "pinched for cash", how about eliminate some of those clearly non-essential expenses and live like a regular guy? Or just become a corporate lawyer to triple your pay but never see your family. He made spending choices to make life easier and more comfortable, but there's no free lunch. He is not entitled to all those luxuries. If you want more money, you have to spend less or work harder. But don't complain about getting reasonably taxed for being part of the richest 3% of households in America. Today, the rich still get to keep 75% of their income after taxes. That's hardly a shake-down.

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/110876/why-the-rich-dont-feel-rich

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” - Warren Buffet

"In order to engage in warfare, one side has to fight back. There is no class warfare in the U.S. It ended a long time ago through surrender." - Noam Chomsky

Monday, May 26, 2008

New Star Wars weapons


"Heat ray gun" for crowd dispersal
"Divine Strake" bomb test in Nevada

Also...

"The exploration and use of outer space ... shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries." – excerpt from the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, of which the USA is a signatory

"There is little hard evidence that any other country or hostile nonstate actor possesses either the technology or the intention to seriously threaten U.S. military or commercial assets in space." – Theresa Hitchens, Center for Defense Information 2003

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070122/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_china

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/opinion/20sat1.html

There has been fairly unanimous condemnation of China's recent successful test of an anti-satellite missile, leading some to worry about the consequences of a "space militarization" race in the 21st Century. Of course China claims peaceful intentions, but I’m sure it was a deterrent message to the West that Beijing has some nasty reprisals in store if the US or others decide to overstep their boundaries with North Korea, or come to Taiwan’s defense during a future conflict. Basically without satellite surveillance and communication, our espionage, reconnaissance, and military capabilities in East Asia would be severely compromised. However, China destroyed its own satellite, probably with a locator signal for the missile to track. It would probably be harder for China to target a foreign satellite with unknown electronic signature, and such a feat has never been attempted/accomplished by any state. Though I’m sure that Boeing, Raytheon, and the other death-peddlers are quickly preparing expensive proposals to the Department of Defense for on-board countermeasures for our space assets.

While none of us should be happy with China's supposed capacity to destroy our space assets from the ground, this is hypocrisy in its purest form. The Air Force has asked Bush to fund new research and tear down Clinton-era or Cold War safeguards to facilitate a new wave of space-based military projects. It’s sad when most nations (EU plus Russia and China even) are calling for demilitarized space while America is the sole dissenter. From the same people who brought us “Star Wars” that doesn’t even work after billions of dollars invested, now we have “Rods from God” that can potentially obliterate any target anywhere on the planet, within a few minutes of the launch order (so we have ultimate first-strike capability). Supposedly such a platform obeys the 1967 Outer Space Treaty because a giant space-launched heavy metal projectile careening towards Earth is “not a weapon of mass destruction”. Probably we already have the capacity to jam or neutralize foreign satellites, and lord-knows-what-else in the product pipeline. Once again, are the very efforts intended to enhance our security actually making us less safe?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03209/206343.stm

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2005/06/15/the_folly_of_space_weapons.php

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0518space-arms18.html

"If America doesn't weaponize space, an enemy will," according to Peter Teets, Undersecretary of the Air Force and director of the National Reconnaissance Office. That is the whole point of engaging other nations and ratifying treaties so this possibility doesn’t occur! If all the pork we waste on the Pentagon was redirected to USAID, State Department, and Foreign Service, I guarantee we’d be better off and the world a safer place. Remember, scientists just advanced the “Doomsday Clock” another tick towards midnight due to climate change, and space weapons might be the next tick (or last straw).

http://www.thebulletin.org/minutes-to-midnight

We have the most space assets and maintain a huge lead on satellite superiority, so we have he most to lose from a space race. Then why is the Bush Administration practically prodding other powers to challenge us? If we are so concerned about other countries hurting us from space, how do we think the rest of the world feels about our overwhelming dominance in the heavens? That being said, we shouldn’t be surprised if China or others try to gain a bit of leverage in response to our repeated belligerent provocations.